Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that output is deterministic and that it neither writes files nor generates creative copy, but it does not describe what the returned skeleton contains or how the nested acceptedDesign object is used.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler and is front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds a useful scope exclusion without redundant restatement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a complex nested input schema and no output schema, so the description should explain the returned skeleton and key parameter roles. It only states that a deterministic skeleton is returned and that file writing and creative-copy generation are excluded, leaving major behavioral and structural details undocumented.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 13%, with just the brief parameter carrying a description. The tool accepts 8 parameters, including a required templateId enum and a nested acceptedDesign object with multiple required fields, yet the description provides no parameter-level meaning or usage guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a deterministic VideoSpec skeleton. It also excludes creative-copy generation and file writing, which clarifies scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as create_video_brief, propose_video_storyboard, get_video_schema, or scaffold_carousel_deck.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a negative boundary: it does not generate creative copy or write files. It gives no positive guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like create_video_brief, edit_video_brief, get_video_schema, or propose_video_storyboard. The agent must infer the intended usage from the tool name alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.